Long v. Long

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, Belmont County · 2020 · Family Law

Family LawChild SupportRes JudicataAppealschild support arrearageimputed incomedivorce decreeres judicata

Facts

In the parties’ 2005 divorce, the trial court imputed $30,000 in annual income to appellant for child support purposes and ordered her to pay monthly child support. Appellant objected at that time, arguing minimum wage should have been imputed, but the trial court overruled her objections, and she did not appeal the divorce decree. Years later, after the support order terminated and arrears remained, appellant filed several motions seeking adjustment or termination of arrears and argued the original support determination was unconstitutional and erroneous. CSEA reported an arrearage balance of $18,692.55, and the trial court overruled her objections to the magistrate’s denial of relief.

Issue

Whether appellant could, in an appeal from the denial of motions to modify or terminate child support arrears, challenge the original divorce decree’s child support determinations by invoking plain error and constitutional arguments. More specifically, the question was whether those arguments were barred by res judicata because they should have been raised in a direct appeal from the divorce decree.

Rule

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party may not litigate issues that were previously raised or could have been previously raised. Alleged errors in imputing income for child support purposes must be raised in a direct appeal from the divorce decree; if no such appeal is taken, later attempts to attack those determinations are barred.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a divorce decree entered in Akron, Ohio, the domestic relations court imputed $42,000 of annual income to Dana Mercer and ordered monthly child support. Dana objected to the magistrate's income calculation, lost those objections, and never filed a direct appeal. Six years later, after the child support order ended but arrears remained, Dana moved to reduce the arrears, arguing the court originally overstated her earning capacity.

How should the court rule on Dana's motion insofar as it attacks the original income imputation?

Explanation. Res judicata bars litigation of issues that were previously raised or could have been raised earlier. A claim that the trial court erred in imputing income for child support purposes had to be raised in a direct appeal from the divorce decree. A later arrears motion cannot be used to relitigate that original determination.